Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login

Prop 8 in California

Journal Entry: Fri Oct 31, 2008, 1:28 PM
Hi everyone.  I've been debating a good while on whether or not to post this entry.  It feels weird for me to be writing this.  I am, by nature, not a political creature.  I really dislike discussing politics in general.

This is in regards to Proposition 8 for those of you who live in California.  Prop8 aims to make it illegal for same-gender couples to marry.  For basic info, see the wiki article (neutral) or No on Prop 8 (against Prop 8).  

This may not affect me personally, but it affects many of my friends and some of my family, people very dear to me.  So I feel pretty strongly about this:

I would like to ask Californian voters to please consider voting NO on Prop8.  

A friend of mine wrote a very eloquent and heartfelt letter expressing why, and I'd like to share that here.  Because she is personally being affected by this, I think her letter expresses things better than I ever could.  If you have some time, I'd appreciate it if you read this.  And I know Melanie would appreciate it as well:  Melanie's Letter.

If this offends you, I do apologize.  I assure you, that's not my intent.  This is probably the only time I will ever post a political message on my DA page.  I have never done so since I joined DA 5 years ago, and I don't plan on making it a habit in the future.   

Feel free to comment, but please be respectful!  I do NOT want this to turn into a heated debate, so please don't start fighting in this journal.  I will hide any comments that are flames.  (I've never had to do that before.  Hopefully I won't have to now either.)  I'm just asking people to at least consider.  

And if you do happen to share my stance against Prop 8, please don't hesitate to comment and show your support.  

EDIT:  Oh wow, I'm quite surprised (pleasantly so) by these blog entries from Google and Apple.  I hadn't known:  googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/0… and macbook.pro/2008/11/01/apple-s…

Thanks so much for reading!   And thanks for your understanding!  :)

Oh, and on a much lighter note, Happy Halloween, everyone!  I hope those of you who celebrate it have a lovely night with lots of treats!  ^_^

CONTESTS

If you want yours listed, note me.

Pandemoniumswings -- Edgar Allen Poe contest. Nov 15. news.deviantart.com/article/60…
Paranoid-Duckkie -- Coloring contest. Dec 31. paranoid-duckkie.deviantart.co…
LeahCK -- Shyness contest. Jan 2. leahhimura24.deviantart.com/jo…
nJoo -- 2D Rock-off. Biweekly. njoo.deviantart.com/journal/19…
Deviant-Contests -- Info on contests around DA.

Offsite:
CGHub.com -- Lifeless Forest. Dec 31st. cghub.com/challenge

GENERAL LINKS


Please help a deviant in need: news.deviantart.com/article/61…


Telephone Game ::: Roster & Instructions
Previous Features ::: Previously featured artists.

Please consider voting No on Prop 8: www.noonprop8.com/
MY LINKS

CGHub ::: My CGHub.com profile.
hakubaikou.com ::: Rurouni Kenshin fan works.

Commissions ::: Commissions currently CLOSED. Sorry!

USAGE



My artwork is not stock imagery, so please do not treat it as such. ^_^

In a nutshell:
1. Don't alter/edit/mutilate my art.
2. Don't claim it as your own.

The following are fine as long as you don't alter my images. No need to contact me for permission:
  • Downloading my art for your personal viewing pleasure.
  • Using my artwork as your desktop image.
  • Printing out my art for your personal use (like putting it up on the wall of your room.)
  • Displaying my artwork UNALTERED as part of a picture gallery on your site. (It'd be nice if you gave credit.)


I would ask that you please do NOT do the following:
  • Other than re-sizing, please do NOT alter/edit my art. Do not crop it. Do not change the colors. Do not draw on top of it. Do not remove my signature. Do not add text over it.
  • Do NOT use my artwork as part of your website/blog/myspace background or layout design.
  • Do NOT use my artwork for banners, avatars, sigs, and tubes.
  • Do NOT claim my artwork as your own.
  • Do NOT take my art without permission and sell it for profit.



  • Watching: Bakumatsu Kikansetsu Irohanihoheto
  • Eating: Halloween candy
Add a Comment:
 
:iconlavonia:
lavonia Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2008  Professional Traditional Artist
You know, I sort of have the same feelings. I never was really a political person but I feel like the turn the country has taken in recent years its made me more verbal about political issues. Lately, I've been a real motormouth.

Yeah I heard about prop 8.

The ideas that the country was founded on religion is a false one. There were plenty of great historical figures who whose morals were not lead by religion. They did great things for this country and are great people.

Most of the people that I know are spiritual people. I don't see any problem with that. I do see letting that interfere with basic human rights as selfish and ignorant.

I look at it from a historical perspective. When theocracy ruled a culture, that culture remained ignorant and repressed. When knowledge rules a culture, the culture thrives.

Based on the above premise, individual rights must be maintained for the good of the people. This is why I support people's rights to choose.
Reply
:iconalexandreazenne:
AlexandreaZenne Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2008   General Artist
I congratulate you on being able to stay calm in your replies. :o
Reply
:iconoogzy:
Oogzy Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2008
I agree with you.
Reply
:iconhubby-n-dad:
Hubby-N-Dad Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2008
ok, in a nutshell, I am a devout Christian, but I believe very strongly in a seperation of church and state, and I'll leave it at that.
Reply
:icontwig7998:
twig7998 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
If I lived in California I'd vote no on Prop 8. Here in New York the state voted awhile back to recognize gay marriages that were preformed out of state. That way couples married out of state could still have their benefits when they moved to NY. Which was good to see pass, If my husband and I moved to another state our marriage is still valid. Why should it be any different for gay couples that have been married.

But about a year ago there was a couple where one person worked at the local community college, and wanted her partner to share her health benefits. Our county executive decided to take the case to court, not wanting to have the county pay for the partner's health care. (It's the county community college which falls under the county government). Of course the executive claims she has nothing against gays and that she's only interested in protecting our tax dollars. Yet with all the times this case has been in and out of the various NY courts I'm sure our tax dollars have been spent more on that then they would have on the benefits in the first place. It's also been said that by recognizing an out of country marriage we are letting Canada tell us New Yorkers what to do. Which is pretty poor reasoning considering the state decided to recognize out of state marriages in the first place.

I did read Melanie's Letter, and it was well written. While I believe that the government has no right to dictate what religion can and can't believe/teach, it bothered me when Melanie mentioned the Mormon church donating to support Prop 8. Whatever religious organizations want to believe is fine, so long as they don't try to get the rest of us to follow what they believe. But here they have tax exempt status and are using money to try and sway politics. This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once "Religion should stay out of politics or be taxed".

With all the issues against gay marriage, personally I can't see just the marriage issue without religion being involved. Probably because it seams like most of the time someone is against gay marriage they say it's because of their religious beliefs. I was raised Roman Catholic, going to church every Sunday. What sticks with me the most is "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you". (I'm not a practicing Catholic anymore). I don't see why whatever government levels recognizing a gay couple enjoying the same legal status as a man and a women would undermine whatever religion believes in regards to homosexuality.

Ack, I hope that made sense. I wanted to say something about how I felt, and I'm not sure if that came out right. I just hope I can see the day where our country can afford the same rights to all it's citizens, no matter what race, religion, gender, disabilities, and sexual orientation. And stop hiding behind religion to oppress people.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
Oh, it made sense to me. Thanks for sharing. :)
Reply
:iconobi-quiet:
Obi-quiet Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
Did you know that if Proposition 8 turns out positively for gay marraiges then I may not be able to worship in my church services?

No matter where anyone stands on this, don't you think it's better that people should choose what they believe instead of having it defined by the country?

I don't think gay couples are right...and I have every right to believe that. I won't ever hurt or hate anyone for thinking otherwise. They have that right too. That's what the constitution gives us (supposedly), and I will respect that. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. --Voltaire

However, any church that proclaims they will not perform homosexual marriages can have their tax exempt taken away or even shut down. Anyone who preaches against it can be tried as a hate crime.

Doesn't sound like a separation of Church and State to me. Sounds like the government trying to force everyone to believe something.

Personally, I think they should come up with another name for a homosexual couple, then give them the same or at least similar rights as a married couple. Personally, I don't like doing that, but I'd be willing to compromise, you know?

Whether people agree with it or not, or whether everyone thinks I'm bigoted or pig-headed doesn't matter. I have that right under the constitution, and personally won't stand for such freedom to be taken away.

I'm not trying to offend, and I'm not trying to argue...I guess I'm just stating my view.
Reply
:iconnopenname:
Nopenname Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
The tax exempt status thing is a flat out lie.

Rabbis can refuse to not marry two non-Jewish (or one Jewish individual to a non-Jewish individual) individuals and not have their tax exempt status.

Catholic priests can refuse to marry a couple if they’re not both Catholic.

Only Mormons in good standing can even attend a Mormon wedding inside a temple, and Mormon bishops can refuse to marry non-Mormons.

So why haven’t the Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints lost their tax-exempt status in California, like Law Professor Peter Peterson says they might if gay people are allowed to marry and those churches refuse to marry them?

Because churches are private actors, guaranteed freedom of religion in the California Constitution.

California Constitution:

SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

SEC. 8. A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.

SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.


Yes on Prop 8 is clearly not above flat out lying to get votes.

No civil rights should be decided by popular election. Period.
Reply
:iconobi-quiet:
Obi-quiet Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
But what happens when two people who claim to be of the religion are refused a ceremony because the religion won't support it? At that point, if marriage is defined between two people instead of a man and a woman, then that religion is discriminating, and in a court, it would be very difficult to continue to maintain those beliefs without then losing their tax exempt status. How much longer until their refusal is considered a hate crime?

Besides, churches have been threatened in Massechusets because of this very same issue, and there was a Baptist church that had that very problem. It lost it's tax exempt status because they refused to marry a same sex couple. Maybe this one won't take all of our rights away, but it will open the door wide open to do so.

-- In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities shut down its adoption work -- which was widely praised -- rather than follow a state rule requiring that homosexuals be allowed to adopt. The religious organization made the move in 2006 after more than a century of adoption work. It had handled more adoptions of foster care children than any agency in Massachusetts.

[link]

It's not lies, it's predictions. Once it becomes a law, the government can step in

And obviously the voting "No" isn't above lying either.
Reply
:iconnopenname:
Nopenname Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2008
The adoption program story does not wash. Considering that while it is a church run adoption program adoption is a state sanctioned and regulated practice, Birth certificates, child birth and parentage are all explicitly and exclusively state held documents/and functions.

Furthermore Massachusetts' Constitution is the problem. The California constitution already protects churches, temples, etc. as individual entities with the religious freedom.

The elected Justices of the California Supreme Court made that very clear when they ruled, citing Article 1, Section 4 of the California Constitution, in a decision written by Republican Ronald George, that the State could no longer discriminate against gay people who wished to marry:

Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)

It is a boogeyman from a state over 3000 miles away that simply does not hold water.
Reply
:iconobi-quiet:
Obi-quiet Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2008
So to run with the government, we should have to give up all of our own beliefs? Sorry, doesn't run with me. Maybe I am more upset with Massachusetts constitution than otherwise, but I don't want to see it repeated and if California gives in, then the rest of the states will follow (it's happened in the past), and how many of those actually have state constitutions that will uphold those? 3000 miles away, but it's in the same country. We're called the United States for a reason. Every state belongs to the whole, supposedly at least. Plus, they've had problems that have not been corrected. I'd say that's cause for minor alarm if not completely justifiable.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
Say your argument is valid, and churches do risk losing their tax breaks. How is that a loss of rights? The religion is not suddenly illegal or invalid. They're still recognized. And they are still protected under law and free to practice their religious beliefs. They can still get private funding like any other non-religious organization that doesn't get tax breaks. The only difference is that they don't get the special tax break. Freedom of religion means you're free to worship as you please without fear of harm or persection. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from taxes. That's just an extra perk that churches happen to enjoy, but I don't think it's a basic right.

How is potentially (I say potentially since it's not written in the law, and this is based on fears of what might be, rather than direct wording on paper)... How is potentially losing public funding even on the same level as having a law that directly states in no uncertain terms that a person will lose the right to marry?

As a straight woman, I've always taken my right to marry for granted. I've always know that someday, if I fall in love with the right man, I'll marry, and we'll have a home together. Our marriage will be protected by the law, and everyone will recognize us legally as a family when we have kids. It never even occured to me that such rights could be taken away.

And then I think of my gay friends. They never chose to fall in love with a same-gendered person, and they can't "reform" and choose to fall in love with someone of the opposite gender, no more so than I could choose to fall in love with a woman. But here they are, in love, wanting to marry, but for them, it's not so simple. In two days, their rights might be gone. And a gay woman would not be able to marry the love of her life. She would not be able to make a home for them and have kids, not with legal protections, she can't.

I keep thinking to myself, what did the gay woman do that's so wrong for her to deserve losing these rights that I so easily have? Am I better than her in some way? Have I done something noble to deserve to marry whom I please? Or has she done something bad? What is it about her that is so awful that she's denied rights even hardcore criminals have? Heterosexual drug dealers are free to marry. Heterosexual rapists are free to marry. Heterosexual murderers on death row are free to marry. (And I'd venture to say they're a far greater risk on the sanctimony of marriage than any gay person I know.) But when it comes to gay people, those rights are suddenly subject to public opinion? It's not on the same level as a tax exemption, something that is given to a select few and is not a basic right. It's a right that everyone (or supposedly everyone) born in the U.S. has.

If Prop 8 passes, it'll be a crushing blow for my friends, in a way that goes, IMO, far beyond losing a public tax break. And I will be quite nervous by the precedence it sets. The government can directly, and explicitly, take your rights away if someone out there disapproves of your lifestyle, a lifestyle that doesn't hurt anyone. Scary, scary thought.
Reply
:iconobi-quiet:
Obi-quiet Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2008
Because once a church loses their tax exempt status, it becomes much more difficult to build churches, gain land to do so, be recognized by government organizations, and even meet without serious opposition (which under the constitution shouldn't exist-- 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances). In and of itself, such a status could be considered discrimination in and of itself, but I digress.

I hate to say it, but the society is tied in so much with money, that a lot of the charities that need to be run in non-profit organizations (many if not most of them religious based) will be hurt incredibly, and it will all and all become much more difficult to maintain these types of organizations.

The government already can basically come in and take away rights. I heard about a guy in New York who had his land taken away for the better good of the people (apartments owned and run by the state, not the people were built there by the way) without compensation. Now I don't know the details, so they might have really had just cause. Knowing the government, I doubt it.

I don't think that this would set a perminant standard either. Whether I approve of it or not I just think that a better solution can be reached, IE giving a homosexual union a different name (other than marriage) and rights under that name. Even if that's not the best solution, I think a better one can be reached.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
Obi-quiet, I'm not sure where you're hearing that information from. As far as I understand, a No Prop 8 allows two gay people to marry and makes no mention of anything else. If it doesn't pass, it would leave the current law exactly as is, and currently, churches are not penalized in any way for refusing to marry gay couples. They're constitutionally protected against such a thing.

"Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)"

So I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. Is it an official source? Or an unofficial source? If it is official, I'd like to see it.

As far as I know, the only rights under threat are those of gay couples. From the sources I've read, I've found no documentation stating that a church's tax-exempt status would be taken away. Quite the contrary, actually.
Reply
:iconobi-quiet:
Obi-quiet Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
The thing is, it has happened in other states. There have been churches that have lost their tax exempt status: To support its claim that churches' tax-exempt status could be at risk, the Yes on 8 campaign cited a New Jersey case where same-sex couples who wanted to have a commitment ceremony were denied use of a beach pavilion owned by a Methodist-affiliated organization. The state, saying the pavilion was not open to the public on an equal basis, revoked the tax-exempt status of the pavilion. This did not apply to the organization or the rest of its property, but it did happen.

-- In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities shut down its adoption work -- which was widely praised -- rather than follow a state rule requiring that homosexuals be allowed to adopt. The religious organization made the move in 2006 after more than a century of adoption work. It had handled more adoptions of foster care children than any agency in Massachusetts.

With the assistance of Governor Mitt Romney, the Catholic Church approached the Massachusetts State Legislature requesting an exemption be made based on religious exemption. It was not granted. Rather than lose the needed funding for their other services, or compromise their values, Boston Catholic Charities decided to shut down their adoption agency to all.

[link]

[link]

I'm sorry, but it sounds like a violation of rights to me.

I'd love to see that not happen...but feel that to believe so would be naive of me.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
By the way, I haven't responded in such depth to other people in the journal because they didn't seemed inclined to debate it. Whereas, from the tone of your first post ,it seemed like you were more inclined to do so. I hope I've interpreted correctly? If not, sorry about the longwinded posts I just wrote, and I didn't intend to single you out or anything! D:
Reply
:iconobi-quiet:
Obi-quiet Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
No no no! I was afraid I'd offended you! I just figure that if I have an opinion, I'd better have a reason to back it up.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
Oh man, I'm so relieved! I know I'd gone on a couple of really long, potentially offensive posts in response to yours, and I was afraid it'd piss you off. You're such a regular visitor to my journals and polls, I'd feel so guilty if I'd upset you. :hug:
Reply
:iconobi-quiet:
Obi-quiet Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2008
Don't feel guilty to stand up for something, even if you offend someone. Still, I'm not easily offended anyway...highly opinionated, yes. Easily offended...well, I hope not. ;) :hug:
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008
Hmm, but that situation was different. They had not refused to marry a gay couple. They had, however, refused to rent the public pavilion out to a gay couple who wanted to use it for a civil union. Since the pavilion was supported publicly, it was required to serve publicly.

If they wanted to be able to choose whether or not to rent it out, then that would be appropriate if they were privately funded. But they weren't. And as you said, the denial was only for the pavilion, not the rest of the church. A public place is a public place. You shouldn't get public funding if you intend to use the property as if it were private. It'd be like having a public school refuse to admit gay children. It's a public school. They have to serve everyone equally.

It's the same with the adoption work. Personally, I don't even feel that it's right for churches to receive tax exemptions based solely on religion. I can't say I enjoy the thought of paying taxes to support organizations whose beliefs are sometimes in direct opposition to my own. But it happens. And I pay my taxes anyway. And I'm totally drifting off the point....

By the way, back to the pavilion, I find the end of the following quote to be particularly interesting:

"A recent ad by the proponents of Prop 8 warned that churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages. As evidence, the campaign pointed to a 2007 New Jersey case in which a lesbian couple wanted to have a civil union at a beach pavilion owned by a Methodist ministry but was denied use of the facility. While the state decided to revoke the pavilion's tax-exempt status, the Yes on 8 camp failed to point out that the status of the ministry itself was unaffected. Later, Frank Schubert, manager of Yes on 8, was forced to acknowledge "a church would be very likely permitted to refuse to perform a gay wedding in the church with no risk to their tax exemption."

For every article supporting Prop 8, I can find one that denounces it. Both sides of the issue have experts chiming in. Both sides make claims that the other side is trampling on rights. So, I guess we can really only go by what we feel is right, which is all I would expect of anyone. I'm no expert. I'm making my decision based on what I've read on the matter. I've been browsing through California's official government site and looking at the constitution. And from what I've read, I don't see a threat to religion in any of the text.

I honestly don't believe that religious organizations will be threatened by this. They're protected by article 1 of the state constitution. But if they were, as unfortunate as it would be, I would consider the consequences to an organization less of an evil than the direct denial of rights to gay couples. One is a terrible disappointment, yes. But the other is a downright tragedy in my eyes, since it affects whether a couple can have a legally protected family. And the direct disruption of a family is far more damaging, IMO, than losing, say, a pavilion or public funding (which I have stated, I don't agree with in the first place.)

When I read articles written by pro Prop 8 organizations, I can't help substituting the word "blacks" or "atheists" or "jews" or "pole dancers" or "shoplifters" in for the gay couple, and it sounds so obviously wrong to me. In my mind, this is no different. I'm well aware that many people disagree, but that's just my take on the matter.

I'm from a minority group myself, one that is quite unpopular itself and is often not protected by state laws against discrimination. That's probably why I feel so strongly about this one even though I'm not gay myself.

Anyway, sorry for the crazy long rant. And I might have said things that are highly offensive to you. And for that, I apologize. I really hope I haven't upset you too much.

If you're a citizen of California, then by all means, vote for what you feel is right. I'm sure you'd understand that I also feel very strongly and must make a public plea for the sake of my own conscience and morals. If Prop 8 is accepted, I'd feel terrible. But if it's accepted, and I never spoke out about it or made an effort to support my own side, I'd feel even worse, you know? :)

Agree to disagree?
Reply
:iconobi-quiet:
Obi-quiet Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2008
Why would that be offensive? You have your opinion, it just differs from mine. Normally I'm an optimist, but when it comes to the government I would have to say I'm more pessimistic. It's happened before, when someone gives a little, a lot is eventually taken from them. I honestly feel that's what will happen here.

My biggest problem was the catholic adoption agencies. I don't feel they should have had to close down (especially when good adoption agencies are so desperately needed) like that. I also feel that if I support such action (adoption to gay or lesbian couples from these particular agencies, allowing a homosexual union to be called a marriage, etc) that I will in truth be supporting the act which I believe to be wholly wrong.

I wouldn't want my children to learn that something I feel so strongly against is right. This will change the definition of marriages and unions all over. School curriculum will change, and I would really like to believe that people will be satisfied with this...but even groups with the best intentions tend to go too far. I think that's human nature "take as much as you can when you can" type thing. Rarely in history has human kind not done so.

Personally, I would never hate or shun anyone for having such beliefs. One of my best friends considers herself bisexual, while I have had fairly close relationships with at least two other people. That doesn't account for many acquaintances and coworkers who were homosexual. They just differ from mine and as such I cannot support it.

Does that make sense?
Reply
:iconthechibiphoenix:
TheChibiPhoenix Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
My mom is voting yes on it. So I'm canceling out her vote 8D

I'm pretty angry about her vote, but if I can do something to at least not make it count, then that's what I'm going to do.

I can't believe people want to legalize discrimination.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
I'm sure your mom has her reasons for voting yes, but I must admit, I'm so glad you're going to cancel it out. ^_^
Reply
:iconthechibiphoenix:
TheChibiPhoenix Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
She's a Catholic who takes the bible too literally D8;

I know all the friends I've asked are voting now. I hope our side wins <3
Reply
:iconinfz:
INFZ Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Hobbyist Photographer
I'm SO glad that I am..

a) Not a resident of California

and

b) 5 months too young to vote this year



There are so many issues on the ballots this year, especially Prop 8 and the Presidential choices, that are seriously making me feel like I'm being ripped apart.

With the presidential choices (at least among the two major parties), I have more than one major problem with each candidate, meaning that I could never vote for him. But with each, I also strongly agree with, meaning I would definitely vote for him. It's really frustrating, and I feel like, if I was eligible to vote, I would either have to vote for a third-party candidate who would never win (sadly) whom I agree with, or choose the "lesser of two evils" between McCain and Obama, which I absolutely DESPISE doing. It's such a relief that I'm unable to vote this year, since there's nothing I can really do about it this election anyway. Next election, I'll have a better choice: Keep the incumbent in because he's doing a great job, or choose the new candidate if the incumbent is not acting in an agreeable manner with me. Simple!


With Prop 8, I'm even more torn apart. I was not raised Catholic, but last year I chose to be. I must say that I agree with the Church's view that marriage IS between a man and a woman, but, also having grown up without a religion, I was exposed to many other things I would have otherwise been closed-minded to. I DO feel like doing so is, in a way, just propagating a new kind of discrimination. Yet at the same time, I just can NOT disagree with what the Church says. I can't. It's all really due to how I grew up.

I really don't feel I "know" enough of either side to really be 100% firmly for or against. That's my thing. I have to understand fully both sides of the argument before I feel I can make a justified decision. Once again, since I'm not of age, let alone a resident of CA, I really can't do anything about it, which I'm thankful for. But, if I was, I would have to vote Yes. It might go against what I really "think" or "believe" is right, but what I FEEL is right.


It sucks. And it also sucks how Prop 8 is likely to NOT receive a fair vote, due to the confusing manner of what voing "Yes" or "No" implies. One would THINK that voting "no" means "banning" gay marriage, while "yes" means supporting it. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
Heh, choosing the lesser of two evils is how it usually is with elections. :p Welcome to the voting world! Have fun next election.

As for your agreeing with the Catholic church, I think that's fine. The question in that case isn't whether you believe gay marriages are right or wrong in the eyes of God. The question then is, do you believe that, by state law, everyone should be governed by the same religious morals you believe in, even if they aren't Christian and may not share your beliefs? It's one thing to believe in the teachings of your church and to feel that your decision is right. It's another to force people who don't believe to adhere to the same rules as yours. Because to them, they may feel just as strongly as you do in the opposite direction.

Speaking strictly for myself, I get nervous when people start talking about their religious beliefs and laws together. I'm not Christian. Very often, I don't share those beliefs. And the thought of my life being dictated by a law based on a moral value system that I don't personally adhere to... well, that's a scary thought. Anyway, that's my two cents. You don't have to agree with it. :p

I also think the wording of Prop8 is very confusing. I'd agree. One would think that Yes would mean support of gay marriages and No would mean you're against it, and it's the opposite of that. Ugh.
Reply
:iconkamiruchan015:
Kamiruchan015 Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Professional Filmographer
I agree: no on prop 8

im glad youre doing this in a respectful manner and not shoving it down peoples throats

hope all is well for you

happy halloween and whatnot
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
Ugh, yes. No shoving, please. D:

Halloween was marvelous. I never really get too many kids showing up at my door, but there were a couple really adorable ones. ^_^ And I ate too much candy. Woohoo!
Reply
:iconkamiruchan015:
Kamiruchan015 Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Professional Filmographer
indeed
XD

awesome, my friends and i used it as an excuse to wander around at night XD
so much fun
Reply
:iconoreocookiewonder:
Oreocookiewonder Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Student Interface Designer
Proposition 8 according to Samuel L Jackson: [link]

EQUALITY MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU KNOW IT?!
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
LOL, I just watched that, and I kept expecting him to say "motherfucker" because of your post. ^_^
Reply
:iconkaiazes:
Kaiazes Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Student Traditional Artist
I don't live in California, so it's silly of me to care, in a way. But I still would vote AGAINST proposition 8 if I had the chance. There are two reasons for this:

First and foremost, love is love no matter what sex it is. If you really love someone, it shouldn't matter to anyone else. What a person does is there business, and who they choose (or maybe even don't choose) to love should be no concern of mine. I was raised to beleive that such decisions are PERSONAL, and I have no right to try to take those decisions away.

Secondly, I think that people discriminating based on religion is short-sighted. I believe that every religion should be trying to promote peace, rather than stirring up controversy based on how they translate a holy text. Also, attempting to ban a modern issue based on something the constitution says is iffy to me. We can only assume that the people who wrote the constitution had freedom in their minds, instead of trying to take their words and glean the meaning we want to see out of them.

That's it! please don't mistake the CAPS as shouting, I just haven't been able to get italics into these. And please- just because I may not agree with you, I still respect your opinion. I understand that you may be coming from a totally different background from me. Please do the same for me.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
Hear hear! :) I heartily agree. And I don't think it's silly to care. What happens in one state could happen in another someday. You never know.
Reply
:iconkaiazes:
Kaiazes Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008  Student Traditional Artist
I would love to see it stop here and now, but you are right. I have my fingers crossed. :)
Reply
:iconkamiruchan015:
Kamiruchan015 Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Professional Filmographer
well said, i agree
Reply
:iconcrowcandy:
CrowCandy Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Student Digital Artist
If I lived there, or if such a proposition ever came up in my state, I would certainly vote against it.

My view on the matter is very simple:

Same sex couples are consenting adults and they are not hurting anyone in any way by getting married. Even if I were a member of a group that frowned on gay marriage I still wouldn't consider it my business OR THE STATE'S business to say who among consenting adults can or can't get married.

The only reason anyone ever gives for trying to make homosexual marriage illegal are RELIGIOUS reasons. There's nothing wrong with having your religious beliefs but LAWS should not be based on forcing your own religious belief on others.

So there you have it, my political standing on this matter is based on the simple matter of what I define as ';privacy' it has nothing to do with my personal feelings about homosexuality and whether its right or wrong. I wish more people viewed their political choices this way.

I firmly believe that in my lifetime we will see a shift towards tolerance and acceptance of alternative sexualities and that people will stop trying to force their religious biases down the throats of people with alternative sexual preferences.

In the meantime I hope for your friends' and family's sake as well as everyone else that a law based on prejudice and with intent to oppress others' personal freedom such as this proposition 8 never gets passed.

Best wishes,
Shelley
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
Well said! I strongly agree. :) But unfortunately, many people don't view political decisions that way.

Anyway, thank you very much! I hope prop 8 is knocked down too. If not, I'm going to have some very sad people to console the next day. :(
Reply
:iconsynconi:
synconi Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008   Artisan Crafter
Ah this is one of those tricky issues. :/

Because of my upbringing, I will never be entirely comfortable with homosexuality but I don't think we have the right to take away their rights, either.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
I think it's perfectly fine if you personally believe that it's wrong. Those are your beliefs, and you have a right to have them. But I'm glad to see that you don't believe in taking someone else's rights away because of your personal value system. I think that's quite admirable. :hug:
Reply
:iconsynconi:
synconi Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2008   Artisan Crafter
I'm glad you understand. :)

:heart:
Reply
:icongenkiichigo:
GenkiIchigo Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Hobbyist Artist
Your friends letter was really nice to read and I can relate to almost every part of it. The similarities between her story and mine are scary actually! I only wish that I still lived in California so that I could vote no on this. It's really a clear cut decision. Should all people be treated equally or not?

I've been with the love of my life for five years now, and we want nothing more than the right to be married and treated equally.

I don't understand where people are getting their 'what's next' mentality from. What makes them think that gay marriage would lead to child/adult unions or the legalization of human/animal unions? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
I'm glad you liked her letter. I thought she stated things in a very positive and gentle manner. :)

I don't understand the "what's next" mentality either. Especially considering it could easily work the other way too. First we have gay couples losing their rights. Who's next? Atheists? Some other unpopular minority group?
Reply
:icongenkiichigo:
GenkiIchigo Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Hobbyist Artist
It really could easily work the other way. In fact it seems far more likely than people suddenly being able to marry children and animals. I really wish that people could just accept each other.
Reply
:iconwhitelder:
whitelder Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Over a hundered comments to this post already and it was only posted this morning.
I am in Australia but the Prop 8 is affecting my american friends.
They brought the bill in for a reason, so that they could move on with the times and follow the other two American states, Britain and Canberra down here in the new way of life, allowing gay marriage or giving gay partners the same rights as defacto partners, those that talk with god think that marriage should be between man and woman and yes it says it in the bible but how much has the bible been twisted to make it fit into the "norm' of the current church?

The rate of divorce between men and woman has increased over the years with larger workloads and longer hours of work whereas the homosexual partnership has gotten stronger we don't hear of any of the currant married gay/lesbian couples getting divorced now do we?

I don't normally wade in on this but if this happens we will revert backwards and same sex marriages will be revoked and the couple will no longer have the rights that defacto relationships have especially superannuation,property and any children that result from the partnership.
This is my 0.02 cents worth and my opinion, take it as you will.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
Yeah. o.O I didn't expect quite so many. My journal entries aren't usually this busy.

I definitely agree. I'm voting no on Prop 8. I want my gay friends to be able to marry and just be happy and be able to live their lives like all other married couples.
Reply
:iconseekingmysoul:
seekingmysoul Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
I have no prejudice against anyone therefore my personal belief is that marriage is between 1 & 1 woman. What man w/man or woman w/woman do is their personal choice but I will not vote in favor of this. I live in California.
When we began to change the laws that affect society we are opening a door that will not close with this issue. What is next a consenting partnership between an adult and a child? Sounds ridiculous, but think about it, they can also claim discrimination and lack of rights. We claim care for animal rights and what about abortion of babies, they have no voice yet they are aborted daily. Different issues but life and human rights can extend to anyone that feels they are discriminated against. There are legal documents that can cover and give consent to the other party involved in making legal decisions regarding the "Partner", by making them executor of their estate and health etc. If anyone disagrees I have no problem with you or your ideology but I state my own opinion. NO hate just is not biologically right. To force others that they have to marry said couple also infringes on the rights of the religious community who are covered under the same Bill of Rights. Anyone can put in their store "We refuse the right to serve", this should be done for those not in agreement with this also fair is fair to all.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
Thanks for sharing your opinion. :)
Reply
:iconswampie:
Swampie Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
My co-workers and I have reached a conclusion:

You only support Prop 8 if you:
- Hug your bible too tight every night before bed.
- Are a homophobe.

Because otherwise: Why would you care?
Who really does care if a man marries another man, or a woman marries another woman?

Simple: Those that follow religious scripture too closely, and those that, for some reason, hate certain others all because they don't do what is "traditional."

Yeah, well fuck your tradition. Everyone has equal rights, no matter skin color, gender or sexual preference.
Reply
:iconhakubaikou:
hakubaikou Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
:\

Just gonna point out that many people who support Prop 8 aren't doing so out of malice. And I'm sure their traditions are precious to them. I wouldn't appreciate someone telling me to fuck my traditions, so I generally try not to say that about anyone else's, no matter how strongly I disagree with them.
Reply
:iconswampie:
Swampie Featured By Owner Nov 1, 2008
So, you'd still support your traditions if it means denying someone equal rights?

I'm sorry. That is a tradition not worth upholding.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconhakubaikou: More from hakubaikou


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
October 31, 2008
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
6,311 (1 today)
Favourites
0
Comments
188